Created attachment 936561 [details] vid *** Description of problem Sometimes when a user is editing multiple process at once (4-5 are opened in the authoring view) then when he attempts to save changes the force save dialog will be shown. When Force save is chosen the changes will not be saved and will be lost on re-open. *** How reproducible Moderate difficulty to reproduce when working. *** Steps to Reproduce Not identified so far. *** Additional info See attached video which demonstrates the problem.
Reproduced in 6.0.0.GA and bpms-6.1.0-DR4 1. Create new BP called "firstbp" 2. Add a task, then an end event. Don't set any properties. 3. Save the BP. Don't close the editor. 4. Create new BP called "secondbp" 5. Add a task, then an end event. Don't set any properties. 6. Save the BP. Don't close the editor. 7. In the editor for "secondbp", set the task to a "Send" task. 8. Switch to the editor for "firstbp", set the task to a "Receive" task. 9. Save 'firstbp'. A "Force Save.." dialog will popup saying user has updated "secondbp" even though you're saving 'firstbp' 10. Click "Force Save" 11. Close "firstbp" (click OK when prompted with the "may save unsaved changes" dialog) 12. Close "secondbp" (click OK when prompted with the "may save unsaved changes" dialog) 13. Re-open "firstbp" - the Task will have no type 14. Re-open "secondbp" - the Task will be a 'send' task, even though you didn't save the change. In the current build, this problem doesn't happen, possibly because the incorrect "Force Save" dialogs have been fixed (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111406). Following the steps above, at step 13, the task in "firstbp" is a "Receive" task, and at 14, the task in "secondbp" has no type, because it wasn't saved. I've tried other ways to reproduce the problem, but can't in the current build.
I can confirm that ER3 saves the right process and Force Dialog is missing.
This issue is present in 6.1.0 ER5. Look at bz 1184487.
Fixed for 6.2.0 - see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184487
Is a problem to cherry pick this fix to 6.1.0?
I think cherry-picking the commit from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184487#c3 to the 6.2.x branch should work.
Commit cherry-piked to 6.2.x branch. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184487#c4
This issue was verified on 6.1.0 CR1. The conflict dialog contains the right BP.